Pope Benedict failed to stop abuser McCarrick

[church mouse guy]

Pope Benedict, we now have learned, did place restrictions on long-time homosexual rapist Cardinal McCarrick, now defrocked and secluded in a Catholic facility in rural Kansas instead of prison where he belongs, but McCarrick ignored the restrictions and travelled and spoke as he pleased. Apparently, Pope Benedict failed to do anything about McCarrick's disobedience, perhaps fearing bad publicity. So we have two popes, Benedict and Francis, who knew everything about McCarrick and did nothing.

ROME - Correspondence obtained by Crux from an ex-aide to Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal laicized over charges of sexual misconduct and abuse, confirms that restrictions on McCarrick were imposed by the Vatican in 2008. McCarrick also claims that Cardinal Donald Wuerl, then the Archbishop of Washington, was aware of them and involved in conversations about their implementation.

Though the details of those restrictions have never been made public, the correspondence shows McCarrick promising not to travel without express Vatican permission and to resign from all roles at the Vatican and within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), while contesting an instruction to stop coming to Rome.

In one letter, McCarrick suggests the Vatican wanted to “avoid publicity” and thus kept the restrictions confidential.

The correspondence also shows that despite the restrictions, McCarrick gradually resumed traveling and playing prominent diplomatic roles under both Popes Benedict XVI and, to a greater extent, Francis, including talks with China that may have helped shape a controversial 2018 deal between Rome and Beijing over the appointment of bishops.

McCarrick correspondence confirms restrictions, speaks to Wuerl and China

 

[Adonia]

Sad but true. They will have their judgement day for what they have failed to do in this instance.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Reading the report it is clear , Benedict pushed for the restrictions until investigations could determine what was real or not. McCarrick's correspondence with Wuerl AND Francis ,only tries to implicate Benedict. He was put on restriction by Benedict XVI because of allegations which needed to be fully investigated . So the OP is not necessarily true. And much of the Crux report quotes McCarrick, who would love to implicate anyone with himself if he could. Benedict XVI was the one who placed the restrictions and was already out of power 5 years before the China deal was implemented . So Francis was the one who allowed him to be involved. Some might say that Francis did not even know about Benedict's restrictions which McCarrick clearly disobeyed while the investigation was going on. Could it be an agenda by modernist to smear Benedict because Traditionalist regard him as Pope and NOT Francis? Could be. Because certain other bishops knew McCarrick was not adhering to the restrictions applied and those bishops support Francis.

FROM THE CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT:
McCarrick’s globe-trotting continued after the election of Pope Francis, Figueiredo writes: “Without any sense of the lifting of the restrictions, McCarrick continues his foreign travel after the election of Pope Francis on March 13, 2013, as evidenced by a number of communications from him regarding his extensive activity around the globe.” These included communications with the Vatican’s Secretariat of State and with Pope Francis himself, in which McCarrick provides updates on his whereabouts and activities in China, the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Philippines, among other places.
END EXCERPT.


Benedict is the one who started the investigation into the allegations AGAINST McCarrick.innocent until proven guilty, but added caution by implementing restrictions.

It was due to the pressure upon Francis by the Traditionalist that McCarrick was even removed. But he should be in prison like any other sex offender. That millstone spoken of by Christ should have been hung around his neck. Christ will do that Himself. He is guilty of the unforgivable sin.

Obviously people, due to not reading carefully , and may not have the behind the scenes information make assumptions. It is very easy to do play on wording to make the one( Benedict) whom started the investigation seem liable in aiding and abetting .

How can he be guilty if the findings during his period were not complete?

I love how this Crux article also points to another, which says Francis knew nothing about McCarrick. That is a lie because Francis, once he assumed office had personal correspondence with McCarrick who told him of them and defended himself to Francis. The Crux article must have missed that.
The correspondence letters provided by a questionable person ordained by McCarrick do not say McCarrick spoke directly to Benedict but rather :
From an examination of the correspondence, which involves emails and private letters from McCarrick over the period 2008-2017, it appears that senior Church officials, including the (Vatican’s Secretary of State {under} Pope Benedict XVI,) the head of the Congregation for Bishops, and the pope’s ambassador in the U.S., were aware of the informal restrictions, and whatever their response may have been as McCarrick resumed his activities, it did not prevent him from doing so.

McCarrick also writes that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl in 2008, saying Wuerl’s “help and understanding is, as always, a great help and fraternal support to me.” In a 2008 letter to the papal ambassador in the U.S., McCarrick said he had shared a Vatican letter outlining the restrictions with Wuerl.

It does NOT say Benedict himself but rather, SENIOR CHURCH OFFICIAL INCLUDING SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER PBXVI.
We must not glean what we want to be true , but rather what is actually being stated. Allegations such as the one McCarrick was accused of and found guilty of in conclusion ( sadly with a weak sentence), take time to investigate. Benedict pushed for the investigation while sitting Pope . It continued due to pressure from Traditionalist ( with minor consequences in any good person's mind) I add but continued because of them. Francis applied "church law" only in a minor degree, not the correct sentence for mortal sin . The only correspondence McCarrick had concerning Benedict was via other men under him. Benedict at the time was not aware of those correspondence's . McCarrick had personal conversations with Francis however.

Like all administrations, when someone is appointed to address offices like Wuerl "the head of Congregation of Bishops and "Ambassador to the U.S., many things get lost in translation and/or do not even come across the chief in charge's desk. Benedict never personally engaged in any diplomatic ventures with McCarrick once the restrictions were in place. Nor did he personally babysit him. Do you know how many Bishops there are? And how many issues come across the a pope's desk?The pope is not all offices but has to address WHAT IS BROUGHT TO HIS OFFICE DESK= BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION. I am grateful to know something about law and nothing in this article solidifies any involvement by Benedict in questionable behavior. But for sure implicates Francis who allowed McCarrick to be part of the China agreement.

Concerning Church law, it is to only be applied to venial sin or what is called less minor sin .Not MORTAL sin and grievous crimes which are of the world and should be therefore , dealt with by the worldly laws, as all others who are carnal and vile are dealt with. But what escaped justice here does not escape justice after physical life ends.

 

[church mouse guy]

Reading the report it is clear , Benedict pushed for the restrictions until investigations could determine what was real or not. McCarrick's correspondence with Wuerl AND Francis ,only tries to implicate Benedict. He was put on restriction by Benedict XVI because of allegations which needed to be fully investigated . So the OP is not necessarily true. And much of the Crux report quotes McCarrick, who would love to implicate anyone with himself if he could. Benedict XVI was the one who placed the restrictions and was already out of power 5 years before the China deal was implemented . So Francis was the one who allowed him to be involved. Some might say that Francis did not even know about Benedict's restrictions which McCarrick clearly disobeyed while the investigation was going on. Could it be an agenda by modernist to smear Benedict because Traditionalist regard him as Pope and NOT Francis? Could be. Because certain other bishops knew McCarrick was not adhering to the restrictions applied and those bishops support Francis.

FROM THE CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT:
McCarrick’s globe-trotting continued after the election of Pope Francis, Figueiredo writes: “Without any sense of the lifting of the restrictions, McCarrick continues his foreign travel after the election of Pope Francis on March 13, 2013, as evidenced by a number of communications from him regarding his extensive activity around the globe.” These included communications with the Vatican’s Secretariat of State and with Pope Francis himself, in which McCarrick provides updates on his whereabouts and activities in China, the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Philippines, among other places.
END EXCERPT.


Benedict is the one who started the investigation into the allegations AGAINST McCarrick.innocent until proven guilty, but added caution by implementing restrictions.

It was due to the pressure upon Francis by the Traditionalist that McCarrick was even removed. But he should be in prison like any other sex offender. That millstone spoken of by Christ should have been hung around his neck. Christ will do that Himself. He is guilty of the unforgivable sin.

Obviously people, due to not reading carefully , and may not have the behind the scenes information make assumptions. It is very easy to do play on wording to make the one( Benedict) whom started the investigation seem liable in aiding and abetting .

How can he be guilty if the findings during his period were not complete?

I love how this Crux article also points to another, which says Francis knew nothing about McCarrick. That is a lie because Francis, once he assumed office had personal correspondence with McCarrick who told him of them and defended himself to Francis. The Crux article must have missed that.
The correspondence letters provided by a questionable person ordained by McCarrick do not say McCarrick spoke directly to Benedict but rather :
From an examination of the correspondence, which involves emails and private letters from McCarrick over the period 2008-2017, it appears that senior Church officials, including the (Vatican’s Secretary of State {under} Pope Benedict XVI,) the head of the Congregation for Bishops, and the pope’s ambassador in the U.S., were aware of the informal restrictions, and whatever their response may have been as McCarrick resumed his activities, it did not prevent him from doing so.

McCarrick also writes that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl in 2008, saying Wuerl’s “help and understanding is, as always, a great help and fraternal support to me.” In a 2008 letter to the papal ambassador in the U.S., McCarrick said he had shared a Vatican letter outlining the restrictions with Wuerl.

It does NOT say Benedict himself but rather, SENIOR CHURCH OFFICIAL INCLUDING SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER PBXVI.
We must not glean what we want to be true , but rather what is actually being stated. Allegations such as the one McCarrick was accused of and found guilty of in conclusion ( sadly with a weak sentence), take time to investigate. Benedict pushed for the investigation while sitting Pope . It continued due to pressure from Traditionalist ( with minor consequences in any good person's mind) I add but continued because of them. Francis applied "church law" only in a minor degree, not the correct sentence for mortal sin . The only correspondence McCarrick had concerning Benedict was via other men under him. Benedict at the time was not aware of those correspondence's . McCarrick had personal conversations with Francis however.

Like all administrations, when someone is appointed to address offices like Wuerl "the head of Congregation of Bishops and "Ambassador to the U.S., many things get lost in translation and/or do not even come across the chief in charge's desk. Benedict never personally engaged in any diplomatic ventures with McCarrick once the restrictions were in place. Nor did he personally babysit him. Do you know how many Bishops there are? And how many issues come across the a pope's desk?The pope is not all offices but has to address WHAT IS BROUGHT TO HIS OFFICE DESK= BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION. I am grateful to know something about law and nothing in this article solidifies any involvement by Benedict in questionable behavior. But for sure implicates Francis who allowed McCarrick to be part of the China agreement.

Concerning Church law, it is to only be applied to venial sin or what is called less minor sin .Not MORTAL sin and grievous crimes which are of the world and should be therefore , dealt with by the worldly laws, as all others who are carnal and vile are dealt with. But what escaped justice here does not escape justice after physical life ends.

Pope Benedict clearly did not want to go public on McCarrick. There was never any serious doubt about his guilt. McCarrick did not put his name on the China sell-out but he was the brains on the scene. Pope Francis knew the truth all along, just as he was involved in the coverup in Argentina because he was a leading insider amongst the Peronists on power.

It is a pity that Pope Benedict didn't try but he was badly outnumbered in the Vatican and sickened by the filth and stricken with years. I think that the police should have been called on McCarrick years ago but he had a lot of money and it's almost impossible to convict a million dollars in the USA, huh?

The American inability to clean up the mess has resulted in calls for RICO but I doubt if the feds will act. The abuse is throughout all institutions and corporations.

I think that Pope Benedict was just too old for all that trouble and that is most of the reason that he resigned.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Pope Benedict clearly did not want to go public on McCarrick. There was never any serious doubt about his guilt. McCarrick did not put his name on the China sell-out but he was the brains on the scene. Pope Francis knew the truth all along, just as he was involved in the coverup in Argentina because he was a leading insider amongst the Peronists on power.

It is a pity that Pope Benedict didn't try but he was badly outnumbered in the Vatican and sickened by the filth and stricken with years. I think that the police should have been called on McCarrick years ago but he had a lot of money and it's almost impossible to convict a million dollars in the USA, huh?

The American inability to clean up the mess has resulted in calls for RICO but I doubt if the feds will act. The abuse is throughout all institutions and corporations.

I think that Pope Benedict was just too old for all that trouble and that is most of the reason that he resigned.

Well certainly not before all the facts were in. That is unfortunately how clergy matters are addressed. Clearly there is a different manner in which to investigate clergy. But there is no way that a clergyman whose duties are curtailed that, that would not become public knowledge. I agree he should have been arrested. But even according to 1 Corinthians the facts must prove to be not trivial. Secular law should not be applied to minor affairs between brethren but only major. The investigation had to make sure the allegations were true. That is not easy when so many are corrupt and hinder investigations.
1Corinthians6:1-3
Lawsuits among Believers
1If any of you has a grievance against another, how dare he go to law before the unrighteous instead of before the saints! 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!…
Benedict has a case against McCarrick and had to prove it was not trivial.

TRIVIAL CASES..... so, I agree that once it was proven to not be lies, this is NO trivial case. But that investigation which began with Benedict did not conclude with him. His pontificate concluded, before all the facts could be presented. Even with him having the facts the conclave would have to convene and the majority would have to agree to give over McCarrick to the unrighteous authorities of the world. And for men of principle surrounded by many weeds that would be a difficult task . Many supported Mccarrick and were not willing to subject themselves to open shame for fear of loss of power and financial gain. Typical Harlots, always concerned with image instead content.

But my point is, that for sure Francis knew of his pending issues and still allowed him to act on behalf of his authority.That is not the case with Benedict. And you may be right with your last point, but Francis was not too old when it fell upon his lap. Blessings!

 

[OfLivingWaters]

There is a process that we even see in the worldly governments when accusations are made toward high ranking officials. Sometimes, even in the worldly governments, a person may even be able to still practice their duties while an investigation is going on concerning accusations. And it does not help when things are being covered up by men whom of the very system set up to serve in the name of justice, are corrupt. It is very difficult to get a good work done, in a fraternal order which can plot against you.

 

[church mouse guy]

There is a process that we even see in the worldly governments when accusations are made toward high ranking officials. Sometimes, even in the worldly governments, a person may even be able to still practice their duties while an investigation is going on concerning accusations. And it does not help when things are being covered up by men whom of the very system set up to serve in the name of justice, are corrupt. It is very difficult to get a good work done, in a fraternal order which can plot against you.

I forget how long the Americans knew about McCarrick. I think that it was known when he was in the New Jersey area where he had a beach house on the Atlantic Ocean, but I would have to go back and look that up. He apparently was a prolific fundraiser, which I think was the source of his power. I myself surmise that his donors gave him money, also, and that is why he has money even now according to what I heard. Wuerl covered up for him and had him in a mansion in DC, which George Neumayr found out about and published the information, which eventually caused them to move McCarrick to rural Kansas. It could be he dodged arrest because the statute of limitations ran out on him. Wuerl had to offer up his resignation, which was eventually accepted. Wuerl had a high school named after him in Pennsylvania but in a rage the students tore his name off the signs. New York City Cardinal Dolan seemed nice but I thought that it was really strange that he spent tens of thousands of dollars filing five lawsuits trying to keep the body of Fulton Sheen from being moved to Peoria at the request of his niece. What do you think that Dolan's motive was?

 

[OfLivingWaters]

I forget how long the Americans knew about McCarrick. I think that it was known when he was in the New Jersey area where he had a beach house on the Atlantic Ocean, but I would have to go back and look that up. He apparently was a prolific fundraiser, which I think was the source of his power. I myself surmise that his donors gave him money, also, and that is why he has money even now according to what I heard. Wuerl covered up for him and had him in a mansion in DC, which George Neumayr found out about and published the information, which eventually caused them to move McCarrick to rural Kansas. It could be he dodged arrest because the statute of limitations ran out on him. Wuerl had to offer up his resignation, which was eventually accepted. Wuerl had a high school named after him in Pennsylvania but in a rage the students tore his name off the signs. New York City Cardinal Dolan seemed nice but I thought that it was really strange that he spent tens of thousands of dollars filing five lawsuits trying to keep the body of Fulton Sheen from being moved to Peoria at the request of his niece. What do you think that Dolan's motive was?

Hmm, well.....it is my opinion that Cardinal Dolan is too chummy with government officials. Too much shmoozing. He should be firm concerning government officials who think they are going to entertain devils then think they can receive the Eucharist. Excommunicate swiftly pro abortion governmental officials, regardless of their rank in office. Another thing this pluralism of faith.
There is only way to the Father and that is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Cardinal Dolan supports the pluralism of faith.
He needs to straighten up and fly right and stop compromising Christianity. Men have become diluted , water downed vessel devoid of potency.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

I forget how long the Americans knew about McCarrick. I think that it was known when he was in the New Jersey area where he had a beach house on the Atlantic Ocean, but I would have to go back and look that up. He apparently was a prolific fundraiser, which I think was the source of his power. I myself surmise that his donors gave him money, also, and that is why he has money even now according to what I heard. Wuerl covered up for him and had him in a mansion in DC, which George Neumayr found out about and published the information, which eventually caused them to move McCarrick to rural Kansas. It could be he dodged arrest because the statute of limitations ran out on him. Wuerl had to offer up his resignation, which was eventually accepted. Wuerl had a high school named after him in Pennsylvania but in a rage the students tore his name off the signs. New York City Cardinal Dolan seemed nice but I thought that it was really strange that he spent tens of thousands of dollars filing five lawsuits trying to keep the body of Fulton Sheen from being moved to Peoria at the request of his niece. What do you think that Dolan's motive was?

Concerning the Fulton Sheen thing, to me..... obviously a person is a saint, if they through their life ,once receiving Christ as Lord and Savior, follow Him through their life and lead others to Him. Saints are formed on earth. And in finishing their race to its end, obtain the Crown of life in kingship with Christ. The ceremony on earth ( RAISING TO SAINTHOOD) takes place when people OF FAITH witness, either through personal knowledge or testing known works of that person's RIGHTEOUS LIFE ordain he or she as a saint. I believe some, who have been beatified on earth by men as saints, are not necessarily . But those in whom I have researched, whom I have found to NOT be a contradiction to the scriptures( which are the tools for making doctrine, teaching and edifying and leading a person of God in righteousness) are saints. They then therefore , are worthy to be called upon in heaven , through prayer for intervention in a pilgrim's journey.

I have found their are many wonderful saints of the Catholic church. Honestly , I have not followed Fulton Sheen as of yet. But now since you point him out to me , I am going to learn about this man.

As for fighting over any saints body.....there was in the OT a dispute over Moses' body, in which satan did not win. I think this says, that obviously a saints body, if it can ,must be taken by righteous believers and properly handled. It would seem , in this case a perceived saints body belonged in Peoria. It was not uncommon even in ancient Hebrew times for one who is considered to be a patriarch who taught on the matters of God, for that patriarch to brought back to his home land. It would seem fitting -out of sentiment for an honorable person to be given to those of whom are his kin. That they may feel the honor of having a brother born of them with them.

One would not argue against, that...... men who have gone to war in other countries should be brought back to their homeland. I think Cardinal Dolan made a mountain out of a mole hill because his body in either case, would be among people who loved him. But it would seem more befitting that he be where he was born to be honored among his kin, who love his teachings in Christ. Either way, his sainthood would not be hinder based on where his physical remains be. For he is a saint because of where his soul is. The fight was like comparing apples to apples. His body would be among faithful anyway whichever place it rested. So what's the beef right? The money used against others of faith was silly. That was a TRIVIAL matter that could have been ironed out without courts or money , but by saintly wisdom. WHY WOULD ONE FIGHT AGAINST HIS BROTHER? Let him rest with his kin. The money for stupid court battles is more useful for things like helping those in PHYSICAL NEED.

Anyway , I am going to read Fulton Sheen's works and watch his sermons. Thanks for sharing. Blessings!

 

[church mouse guy]

Concerning the Fulton Sheen thing, to me..... obviously a person is a saint, if they through their life ,once receiving Christ as Lord and Savior, follow Him through their life and lead others to Him. Saints are formed on earth. And in finishing their race to its end, obtain the Crown of life in kingship with Christ. The ceremony on earth ( RAISING TO SAINTHOOD) takes place when people OF FAITH witness, either through personal knowledge or testing known works of that person's RIGHTEOUS LIFE ordain he or she as a saint. I believe some, who have been beatified on earth by men as saints, are not necessarily . But those in whom I have researched, whom I have found to NOT be a contradiction to the scriptures( which are the tools for making doctrine, teaching and edifying and leading a person of God in righteousness) are saints. They then therefore , are worthy to be called upon in heaven , through prayer for intervention in a pilgrim's journey.

I have found their are many wonderful saints of the Catholic church. Honestly , I have not followed Fulton Sheen as of yet. But now since you point him out to me , I am going to learn about this man.

As for fighting over any saints body.....there was in the OT a dispute over Moses' body, in which satan did not win. I think this says, that obviously a saints body, if it can ,must be taken by righteous believers and properly handled. It would seem , in this case a perceived saints body belonged in Peoria. It was not uncommon even in ancient Hebrew times for one who is considered to be a patriarch who taught on the matters of God, for that patriarch to brought back to his home land. It would seem fitting -out of sentiment for an honorable person to be given to those of whom are his kin. That they may feel the honor of having a brother born of them with them.

One would not argue against, that...... men who have gone to war in other countries should be brought back to their homeland. I think Cardinal Dolan made a mountain out of a mole hill because his body in either case, would be among people who loved him. But it would seem more befitting that he be where he was born to be honored among his kin, who love his teachings in Christ. Either way, his sainthood would not be hinder based on where his physical remains be. For he is a saint because of where his soul is. The fight was like comparing apples to apples. His body would be among faithful anyway whichever place it rested. So what's the beef right? The money used against others of faith was silly. That was a TRIVIAL matter that could have been ironed out without courts or money , but by saintly wisdom. WHY WOULD ONE FIGHT AGAINST HIS BROTHER? Let him rest with his kin. The money for stupid court battles is more useful for things like helping those in PHYSICAL NEED.

Anyway , I am going to read Fulton Sheen's works and watch his sermons. Thanks for sharing. Blessings!

I am guessing that there is a lot of video of Sheen on YouTube. I remember him from television in the 1950s but most of the time I was too young to understand what he was talking about. Church Militant named their studio in the Detroit area after Abp. Fulton J. Sheen. It is a scandal that New York lawyers got so much money over a cause that was lost to New York law that says that a surviving relative has the say. They say that he liked Peoria, Illinois, better than New York City.

God Bless You!